OSMOSIS
Letter from the Editor
Dear Reader,
Thank you for opening this unique issue of Osmosis Magazine! The 10th issue of UR’s premier science and healthcare magazine looks quite different from previous issues, as the Osmosis Team has disaffiliated from UR in support of the Black Student Coalition and the Protect Our Web movement. Nevertheless, Osmosis Magazine remains dedicated to our mission of sharing interesting and educational science and healthcare stories. This “mini issue” stays true to that goal, while giving the incredible Osmosis Team something to show for their hard work this semester. If you like what you read, please feel free to share this issue with friends and family. Thank you for your support during this historic time on campus. We hope that our future issues will be bigger and better than ever!
Your
Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Shah
Meet the Executive Team
Ryan Shah (Editor-in-Chief, ‘21)
Lily Dickson (Associate Editor, ’23)
Ryan Cvelbar (Managerial Editor, ‘23) Caterina Erdas (PR/Social Media Chair, ‘22)
Table of Contents
The Hidden Faces behind the COVID-19 Vaccine
Page 4
Article by Julia Brittain
Computational Biology: Revealing the Secrets of DNA
Page 7
Article by Yağmur Bingül
Ask Osmosis
Page 9
Article by Ryan Shah
Interview with a Rocket Scientist
Page 12
Article by Alex Robertson
The Hidden Faces behind the COVID-19 Vaccine
By Julia Brittain
When you think about the COVID-19 vaccine, the names Pfizer or Moderna probably come to mind. It’s no surprise that these companies are often mentioned in discussions of the COVID19 vaccine. After all, in December 2020, Pfizer-BioNTech became the first biopharmaceutical company to receive emergency use authorization for their COVID-19 vaccine from the FDA, and Moderna followed shortly after.1 Given that vaccine development is typically a decade-long process, these companies deserve immense praise for creating a vaccine in such a short period of time. However, many of the female researchers that have made this vaccine possible go overlooked. This trend of failing to acknowledge the contributions of female scientists is unfortunately nothing new. In this case, two of the forgotten researchers that invaluably worked towards the COVID-19 vaccine are Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett.
Dr. Katalin Karikó, a Hungarian born scientist, is the woman behind the novel mRNA vaccine design used by both Pfizer and Moderna. In the 1990’s, Dr. Karikó began to focus on ways in which mRNA could be utilized as a disease-fighting agent. However, this was a new area of research at the time, and mRNA was a difficult substance to use for research due to its tendency to
degrade quickly. As a result of these challenges, Dr. Karikó struggled to obtain research funding for nearly half a decade.2
After 5 years of continued rejection during her time working at the University of Pennsylvania, she was demoted from her position in 1995- a setback that would cause many researchers to set off to find a new research topic. Dr. Karikó recalls the feeling of self-doubt she had at the time, when she states, “I also thought maybe I’m not good enough, not smart enough. I tried to imagine: Everything is here, and I just have to do better experiments.”2 In the face of these challenges, Dr. Karikó persevered. With assistance from her colleague, Dr. Drew Weissman, Dr. Karikó created a new method of synthesizing mRNA with modified rather than synthetic nucleotide base pairs. These modified mRNA were not detected and destroyed by the body like the previous synthetic
Dr. Karikó, as photographed by Hannah Yoon for the New York Times.
versions, which meant Dr. Karikó could successfully generate mRNA for biological purposes. Their findings were published in 2005 but went largely unnoticed by the science community. Fortunately, Derrick Rossi caught wind of their new discovery and quickly recognized its importance. Rossi went on to co-found Moderna, short for ‘modified RNA’, and his company continues to develop many of the techniques that Karikó created. While Karikó may not have gotten due credit for her contributions to the mRNA vaccine design, her work laid the groundwork for creating an effective vaccine against COVID-19. Given the role she played in the vaccine’s development, Karikó rightfully deserves to have her name stand alongside Moderna and Pfizer as pioneers in vaccine development.2
Much like Dr. Karikó, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, an African American doctor and researcher, is another figure that has been largely left out of the conversation surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine. In addition to being the leading researcher for COVID-19 vaccine development at Moderna, Dr. Corbett has also been working with the NIH's Vaccine Research Center since 2014. She says that she began her work with coronaviruses in order to gain, “a strong understanding in vaccine immune responses [so] that we could potentially develop one [a coronavirus vaccine].”3
Not only was Dr. Corbett incredibly influential in the creation of the vaccine itself, but she is also involved in vaccine outreach and education within communities of color. Given the history of unethical medical research within communities of color, Dr. Corbett actively works towards making her research accessible and digestible to people outside of the science community. Currently, she has utilized her large social media platforms to reach out to vaccine-hesitant individuals, as social distancing guidelines have limited her ability to speak at events and spread knowledge of her research.4 At just 34 years old, Dr. Corbett’s accomplishments provide hope and representation to people of color who are often left out of careers within the STEM field. Dr. Corbett remains inspired to continue her work on vaccines and she notes that, “Vaccines have the potential to be the equalizer of health disparities, especially around infectious diseases.”4 Given COVID-19’s disproportionate impacts on communities of color, Dr. Corbett remains aware of the importance of creating an effective, safe, and accessible
Dr. Corbett, as photographed by the National Institutes of Health for ABC News.
vaccine that could protect the most vulnerable communities from the negative effects of the virus.
Without the works of Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, the development of an effective vaccine against COVID-19 would be severely hindered, given that typical vaccine development takes decades. It is vital that their accomplishments begin to garner the attention that they deserve, as lost legacies of women within science should no longer be tolerated. For the sake of both women and people of color, seeing positive representation within underrepresented fields holds tremendous potential to continue to inspire new generations to follow their dreams, even if it means making their own paths and not giving up. While the
names Pfizer and Moderna may go down in history because of their accomplishments in the last year, so should the names of Dr. Katalin Karikó and Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, who have demonstrated just how much is possible when you push past barriers and tenaciously pursue your passions.
References
1. FDA. (2021). Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/emergencypreparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid19/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine
2. Garde, D., & Saltzman, J. (2021). The story of mRNA: From a loose idea to a tool that may help curb Covid. STAT https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrnahow-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-inthe-covid-vaccine-race/
3. Romero, L., Salzman, S., & Folmer, K. (2020). Kizzmekia Corbett, an African American woman, is praised as key scientist behind COVID-19 vaccine. ABC News https://abcnews.go.com/Health/kizzmekia-corbett-africanamerican-woman-praised-key-scientist/story?id=74679965
4. Subbaraman, N. (2021). This COVID-vaccine designer is tackling vaccine hesitancy - in churches and on Twitter. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00338-y
Computational Biology: Revealing the Secrets of DNA
By Yağmur Bingül
Science is exponentially growing. It gets millions of times better than its previous self each year. In 2000, when we published the first draft of the complete human genome to develop new ways to treat, cure, or even prevent the thousands of diseases that afflict humankind, it cost 3 billion dollars. Six years later, in 2006, it cost only $14 million to generate a “complete” human genome, to find out every single gene in the human DNA. And now, we can develop a complete human genome for only $1,500 - $4000. The cost to complete the human genome had declined exponentially, 10⁷ times over this time period. Between 2000 and 2020, scientist learned how to analyze each data set better to complete the human genome. Today, we are mostly using computer machinery to save 10⁷ money and time. But how could we achieve that?1
Generating models of DNA pairs requires sequencing billions of base pairs. Similarly, extracting genetic information from the ancient bones needs high-level 3D modeling. Now, tracking the spread and mutation variations of COVID-19 calls for machine simulations.2 In the high demand of biology, most of the calculations can only be done by supercomputers. A study published in 2017 found that 90% of the Biological Sciences Directorate principal investigators reported that they currently or will soon be analyzing large
data sets requiring high-level machinery.3
When we realized the ability of the microbes to produce energy, reduce toxic waste, and remediate the environment, we initiated the Microbial Genome Project in 1994 to find all the useful abilities of bacteria by sequencing their genes. We could foresee what sequencing the human genome would do.4 The human genome project (HGP) did not only help computer scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and biologists to come together under the same umbrella, but it initiated so many different fields in science. For example, proteomics arose, a discipline focused on identifying and quantifying the proteins present in environments like cellular organelles, organs, or blood.5 With proteomics, we started to understand the molecules in our body. But not only that, with HGP, we became able to diagnose disease, detect genetic predispositions to disease earlier, and create pharmacogenomic custom drugs. Also, we figured out the potential to treat the diseases through genes, using gene therapy, and found ways to apply this technique to treat or even cure genetic diseases.
Thanks to computational biology and HGP, we rediscovered evolution. With this project, science got a chance to compare millions of different sequences from various species. With the 4000 completed genome sequences, how diverse organisms from microbes to
humans are connected on the genealogical tree of life was reestablished. Interestingly, it clearly showed us that all the species that exist today come from a single ancestor. This gave fascinating information about human evolution as well. The sequence of the Neanderthal genome has also had implications for human evolution. Shockingly enough, a few percent of Neanderthal DNA and the encoded human genome were mixed, which suggests that there was some interbreeding while the two species were diverging.6
At the cutting edge of this technology, we can now see the mutations of a baby’s gene even before fertilization. Since we know the standard order of the human genome, we can identify any type of mutation in the egg and sperm. By using gene editing methods, like CRISPR, we are able to change the mutation to a normal gene. In this case, theoretically, the appearance of any possible genetic disease could be reduced to almost zero. Besides genetic diseases, we can even make the babies become more resistant to viruses and especially future pandemics, just like the one we are currently experiencing now: COVID-19. However, there are still remaining questions: How much mutation is too much? How much should we change? What will happen if we change the future generations? What will be the consequences? We may not know the answers for a while.
All living beings have genetic components. Being able to manipulate them gives us an immense amount of capability. Furthermore, with computers and classic data analysis, we can change the fate of future medicine, human
genetics, disease biology, and become hopeful for treatments for genetic diseases. Considering the fact that our knowledge in science and technology is still limited, it is exciting to see that there is a high chance that computational biology will shape the future. And it is even more exciting to realize that we still have so many things to discover with it and exponentiate science.
References
1. Genome. (2020). The cost of sequencing a human genome. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/SequencingHuman-Genome-cost
2. Barone, L. (2019). Computing biology's future. Scientific American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/computingbiologys-future/
3. Barone, L., Williams, J., & Micklos, D. (2017). Unmet needs for analyzing biological big data: A survey of 704 NSF principal investigators. PLOS Computational Biology https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371%2Fjourna l.pcbi.1005755
4. Serendip. (2018). What is the Human Genome Project: Why is it important to society. https://serendipstudio.org/biology/b103/f01/web1/ejelonu.html
5. Aebersold, R. & Mann, M. (2003). Mass Spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01511
6. Stoneking, M. & Krause, J. (2011). Learning about human population history from ancient and modern genomes. Nature http://www.nature.com/articles/nrg3029
Ask Osmosis
By Ryan Shah
Welcome to the first installment of Ask Osmosis, our new Q&A section where we answer questions about science and healthcare sent in by our wonderful and curious readers. Thank you to everyone who sent in questions!
What will be the next evolution for humans, even if it’s a minor one?
The human genome, which is the complete set of our genetic material, contains thousands of genes that determine our traits, and the different possible forms of these genes are referred to as alleles. One way to define evolution is as a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. So, the evolution of humans can be examined by identifying which of our alleles are changing in frequency, a phenomenon that is actually happening right now. A wellsupported example of this involves the genes that play a role in determining our height. A 2016 study found that alleles associated with being taller are becoming more common in humans; in other words, these “tall” alleles are being positively selected for, and humans are evolving to become taller.1 While many other factors, such as better nutrition, may contribute to this
observed increase in human height over time, this is a pretty cool example of how evolution is an ongoing process that is unfolding as we speak.
How are some sea creatures able to live at such a low depth in the ocean?
The biggest challenge for creatures living in the deep sea is overcoming the immense pressure exerted by the weight of the water. This pressure can be hundreds of times higher than at sea level, requiring organisms to develop unique evolutionary adaptations, such as creating special proteins to maintain structure and function under high pressure.2 A more visually noticeable adaptation lies in the physiology of these creatures. While most organisms are primarily comprised of liquid, many also have air-filled cavities, like our lungs and sinuses. If we were exposed to the high pressure of the deep sea, the gases in these areas would be compressed, leading to the collapse of these air-filled structures. To avoid this, deep sea creatures either entirely lack air cavities that would be crushed or have organs designed to compress without failing. Remember learning in high school chemistry that gases are compressible while liquids are incompressible? This real-world
Page Design by Israa Draz
example exemplifies why that difference is so critical.
How close are scientists to bringing back the mammoth?
Aside from the ethical question of whether or not scientists should create a woolly mammoth, there are two primary approaches to “resurrecting” the mammoth. The first involves directly cloning an actual mammoth by using viable DNA from a mammoth cell. The DNA-containing nucleus of the mammoth cell would be implanted in stem cells from an Asian elephant, creating an embryo that would eventually be delivered by an Asian elephant. While this approach would create a genuine mammoth clone, it requires highly intact DNA from a viable mammoth cell, a feat considered highly unlikely. The second approach is more likely to succeed in the near future and possibly within the next couple of decades. This option involves editing the DNA of an Asian elephant embryo to closer resemble a mammoth’s genetic code. For example, scientists would make the Asian elephant hairier and allow it produce proteins that can survive in colder temperatures. While this approach is more realistic, it remains unknown if the modified elephant would survive and how close to a real mammoth it would be. Notice that both of these options yield a single baby mammoth; producing a self-
sustaining herd of mammoths is a whole different story that you shouldn’t expect to play out anytime soon. Still, there is much to be excited about as genetic technology continues to evolve. For example, scientists just sequenced the DNA of a mammoth that di ed between 1.1 and 1.65 million years ago, making it the oldest genome ever sequenced.3
Why are the geese on campus so aggressive?
“What’s wrong with these geese?” asked every UR student ever. It’s no secret that the geese on campus can be quite confrontational. I wish there were a more exciting explanation for their behavior, like something in the water, but the reason for their aggression is a combination of factors that you’d probably expect. First, geese will fight fiercely to protect their territory and their babies (known as goslings). So, if you notice the geese being particularly feisty, there might be eggs or adorable goslings nearby. Second, the geese on campus are constantly around people and are often fed by campus visitors. This continuous human contact has basically eliminated any fear the geese had of people, which was not much to begin with.4 In conclusion, don’t mess with the geese, and don’t feed the waterfowl!
What’s the deal with wearing two masks?
Good question! Wearing a mask over our mouth and nose has been adopted as a commonplace safety measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Masks help mitigate the spread of the virus by preventing virus-containing respiratory particles from traveling between people. However, masks aren’t perfect; some respiratory droplets are still able to get past the barrier, especially if there isn’t a snug fit on the wearer’s face. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in early 2021 compared the effectiveness of disposable medical masks alone, cloth masks alone, and a combination of both.5 One experiment found that a disposable medical mask alone blocked the release of 56.1% of cough particles, while a single cloth mask blocked 51.4%. However, wearing a cloth mask over a medical mask blocked 85.4% of the particles from spreading into the air. Based on these observations, it is now recommended that people wear two masks when possible to further stop the spread of the virus. Please remember that if you choose to do so, you should wear a cloth mask over a disposable medical mask. You don’t want to combine two medical masks or add any other mask type to a KN95 or N95; such combinations either don’t seem to increase effectiveness or could obstruct breathing. When done properly, “double masking” is a safe and effective way to “Protect Our Web.”
References
1. Field, Y., Boyle, E., Telis, N., Gao, Z., Gaulton, K., Golan, D., Yengo, L., Rocheleau, G., Froguel, P., McCarthy, M., & Pritchard, J. (2016). Detection of human adaptation during the past 2000 years. Science, 354(6313), 760–764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag0776
2. Somero, G. (1992). Adaptations to high hydrostatic pressure. Annual Review of Physiology, 54(1), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.physiol.54. 1.557
3. van der Valk, T., Pečnerová, P., Díez-DelMolino, D., Bergström, A., Oppenheimer, J., Hartmann, S., Xenikoudakis, G., Thomas, J., Dehasque, M., Sağlıcan, E., Fidan, F., Barnes, I., Liu, S., Somel, M., Heintzman, P., Nikolskiy, P., Shapiro, B., Skoglund, P., Hofreiter, M., … Dalén, L. (2021). Millionyear-old DNA sheds light on the genomic history of mammoths. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-032249
4. Smith, A.E., Craven, S.R., & Curtis, P.D. (1999). Managing Canada geese in urban environments. Jack Berryman Institute Publication and Cornell University Cooperative Extension. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/h andle/1813/66/Managing%20Canada%20G eese?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
5. Brooks, J.T., Beezhold, D.H., Noti, J.D., Coyle, J.P., Derk, R.C., Blachere, F.M., & Lindsley, W.G. (2021). Maximizing fit for cloth and medical procedure masks to improve performance and reduce SARSCoV-2 transmission and exposure. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(7), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7007e1
Interview with a Rocket Scientist
By Alex Robertson
There are three examples of professions that people refer to as highly intelligent: a brain surgeon, nuclear physicist, and rocket scientist. I’ll be representing the rocket scientists with this interview with aerospace engineer Andrei Doran!
What do you do?
This is my 39th year working for the Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles, a consultant for the Air Force which is a major buyer of satellites and rockets. We work a little bit with JPL and NASA, as well as other offices around the country through government support. We help with quality control and work with contractors, which are the factories that build these rockets and satellites. This is important because if a car doesn’t work, you can take it to a mechanic, but when a satellite doesn’t work, the US Treasury loses hundreds of millions of dollars. If a rocket launch fails, there is a big explosion. The risk is very different for a device made for Earth versus a device meant to be launched into space for 10-15 years without failing. However, we are a company of about 4,000 people and have many employees working on similar projects as contractors. This includes detailed computer simulations of things like reaction wheels used to move satellites. I specifically do less of the detailed and technical work like simulations, lab work, and analyses, and do more of document reviews, requirement reviews, leading groups, etc. Rather than doing one thing in great depth like the younger, newer guys, I do more general work almost like an
Emergency Room physician compared to a heart specialist.
How has your work changed over the years?
Before I joined the Aerospace Corporation and after I got my master’s degree in 1976, I joined what was then the missile systems division of Hughes Aircraft Corporation for 2 years. Afterwards, I returned to UCLA to get my Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering. When I finished that, I joined the Aerospace Corporation. The Aerospace corporation has not changed much over the years; it has mostly just expanded to accommodate more customers and projects as space exploration has become more widespread. My specific work has changed simply because I have gotten older and have worked in different leadership positions. Like I said before, when I was younger, I was doing more detailed simulations and analyses. My work then was with altitude determination and control using physics and geometry, examining how a satellite positions itself in order for its antennas to look in the right direction. Now, it is more evaluating the performance of GPS receivers, electronics, and antennas. These launch vehicles have a system of guidance to know where they are, which is based on gyroscopes and accelerometers. Now, as these systems become more advanced, they actually
work to guide the rocket itself instead of just relaying position information.
Honestly, I do many, many different things, but this is how my work has evolved over the years.
Why did you want to become an aerospace engineer?
I wish I could say that I grew up with a dream of being an aerospace engineer, but this is not the case. I grew up in Romania and left when I was 17. I was going to become an architect and had been taking drawing lessons to pass the entrance exam at the university. We were not well to do financially, and as we made our way to the USA, a wealthy relative of ours visited us and asked me what I was going to do when I got there. I said an architect, and he said, “No, no. That’s not very good in the United States; engineering is much better.” As poor migrants, the rich man had spoken, and that was it! When I got to the US, people asked me what I wanted to do, and I began to say engineering. I didn’t know which kind I wanted to do. By the time I transferred to UCLA, I still didn’t know what branch I wanted to go into, but the first course I got an A in was Dynamics. I loved it, and the professor was very good! That led to Dynamics and Control which brought me to my master’s degree, where my advisor invited me back to get a Ph.D. It is interesting that without having an initial passion for it, I developed it along the way and finished Summa Cum Laude in 1976. I have loved it ever since!
Are there new, upcoming technologies that you are excited about or are working on?
The technology I deal with are sensors and actuators, which help a satellite determine its position. This includes star trackers, Sun sensors,
Earth sensors magnetometers, and GPS receivers. The other group of devices are reaction wheels, magnetic torque providers, and thrusters which help the satellite orient itself. As far as new technology, star trackers have been improving and technology has become more sophisticated with new computers. I am less of an expert in the technology of these devices but more of a user of them. We use computer software to analyze these data and have statistical estimators providing satellite information to control orientation, fire thrusters, etc. However, I hear a lot about new technology, for example, solar arrays are improving, batteries are going from nickel hydride to lithium ion, computers are getting better, and even more. In my specific field, things don’t evolve and improve as fast as other fields. The new technology is there, I’m just not working on it!
What are your thoughts on NASA’s Artemis program and having a lunar base to help our quest to Mars? What do you think are our biggest challenges in getting to Mars?
If the launch from the moon is less fuel consuming than the launch on Earth, it seems to be interesting and worth studying. It is a balance between the pluses and the minuses of the infrastructure on Earth, and keeping a base on the moon, which is not that easy. Speaking of Mars, I was extremely excited with the Mars probe that just landed (Perseverance). I watched it, and it was a great success! There are many challenges with getting to Mars. I hate to confess that I will not be the first to volunteer. You have to have some form of buildings in which you provide oxygen and life support, you need some form of energy production, and you
need to understand how to work with the chemical signature of Mars’ atmosphere and surface. There are even more hurdles to jump over in terms of a mission there, simply because it is such a long trip. I can tell you that with any interplanetary exploration, one also needs the same altitude, determination, and control as any other space bound satellite or ship, and that is my specialty!
What do you think about SpaceX and their plans to commercialize space travel?
There is a very good future for SpaceX plans to make faster transportation happen. I see no problems with it except for the cost and the environmental concerns with fuel use. Will the fuel be environmentally friendly? What will this cost them and the consumer? At the end of the day, fast travel is always sought after. Like I said before, whether it is getting to Mars, sending up a satellite, or transporting people around the globe, the altitude determination and control is exactly the same, so eventually it will get back to my line of work.
Voyager I and II have been out in Space for a very long time. How have we improved in our communication skills over the years and how do we stay in communication?
The pointing accuracy becomes more important because the satellite wants to point its antennas towards Earth, and they have limited power. You cannot make an antenna very wide for a satellite beyond Pluto because then the power is too weak, and Earth will struggle to receive a signal and interpret it. To provide more power, you must narrow the antenna beam, which means you need more precision aiming at Earth
the father away you get. You must have a very good altitude determination for this task. All of these satellites that go far out lose the ability to rely on certain sensors at a certain point, for example, Earth sensors. They are too far out, so they rely on star trackers which are very accurate. This is where you must spend the most money to make sure that each and every altitude and tracking device works well the farther away it gets.
What advice would you give to students wanting to get into aerospace engineering?
For university students, if they enjoy aerospace engineering and they are interested in satellites, it would be very good to study the courses related to aerospace engineering that are specific to their interests. What I mean is that, even in aerospace engineering, there are many specific fields: you have physicists working on positioning and launch control, chemists working on propulsion systems, engineers working on the structures of the satellites, fluid mechanics, thermal control, and many others. We don’t really have any form of a general practitioner, to put it in medical terms. Everyone has a very specific field and technical skill that they work on, with physics and math being the foundation. I enjoy the job very much because it is incredibly satisfying to have successful machines and launches.
Is there anything specific that you are working on now?
I support the GPS3 system, which was just launched in the first four satellites. Right now, we use GPS2. I support these launches in terms of the preparations and receiving telemetry data during the launch, monitoring deployment, and making sure
everything is correct all the way into orbit. GPS3F will come after GPS3, and we are currently in the process of concept design review and incremental design review of these new antennas, electronics, and making sure everything is working properly. Eventually, the reaction wheels will be exchanged for bigger ones, whereafter we will need to assess the effect of its vibrations on the gyroscopes and general structure of the satellite. So effectively, we are in a large design review and requirement checking phase for all of these systems. I am also working on a risk evaluation process where I review documents from contractors, like NASA, about new satellite concepts and evaluate the risk involved in my field, dynamics, and altitude determination and control. I tell them about any contradiction in the requirements or the lack of detailed analyses. There is no room for error!
Are there any saves or stories you would like to tell?
In my earlier days, I saved a couple of satellites. In 1991, I was the team leader of a simulation for a satellite that was to be raised from its transfer orbit to its final orbit using a motor weighing 100 pounds. The launch vehicle was about 60 million dollars, and the satellite was 90 million. We were a group of 4 people who ran a simulation showing that the pointing error would get to 45 degrees during the burn of that motor due to its dynamics. Because of that, the contractor changed the design completely, putting check valves and orifices in the tubes that brought the propellant into the engines. This made it symmetric and kept the spin balanced so the error became about 0.0 - 0.4 degrees. This saved the mission, and we saved the country 150 million dollars. This always feels good!
Thank you to our awesome Osmosis team members!
Editors: Nhyira Asamoah, Julia Brittain, Israa Draz, Claire Dustin, Kaitlin Edwardson, Rilyn McKallip, Joshua Pandian, Alex Robertson, Jayana Turner
Design Team: Lily Dickson (chair), Yagmur Bingul, Israa Draz, Claire Dustin, Mikayla Quinn
Advertising: Caterina Erdas (chair), Yagmur Bingul, Nhyira Asamoah, Israa Draz, Claire Dustin, Kaitlin Edwardson, Alex Robertson, Jayana Turner
Like what you see? Apply today! urosmosis.com/jointeam